The Conferences of the Parties is a time when reports are released, or at least, they get attention. Last week I wrote about a report from the World Bank that gives an analysis of the world four degrees warmer and comes to the conclusion that “a 4 degree Celsius warmer world must be avoided.” (PDF of Report). The emergence of the discussion of the world four degrees warmer follows from the fact that our behavior in both energy consumption and policy development suggests little chance that we will meet the “official” goals from the Conference of the Parties that we will limit global average. That official goal is that we will limit surface warming to 2 degree Celsius. It is my opinion that we will have a major challenge in limiting warming to 4 degrees, despite the consequences suggested by the World Bank report.

This press release was for the World Energy Outlook 2012 (Executive Summary). The gist of the report is that there have been fundamental changes in the production of oil and natural gas in the United States. The changes come from the successes of methods to release of “unconventional” oil and gas from reservoirs that were previously felt to be too costly to exploit. One of the core technologies used to release these stores of fossil energy is hydraulic fracturing or fracking. This report goes on to say that the U.S. will out produce Saudi Arabia in the mid-2020s, and that the U.S. is on its way to being energy independent by 2035.

I had several fast reactions to this report. My first was imagining the geopolitical landscape if the U.S. did not have deep energy roots in the Middle East, and indeed, in all parts of the world. Then I imagined other countries expressing their energy-related interests throughout the world. I also felt that this prediction will have profound impacts on how we think about climate, climate change, and ultimately, on the Earth’s climate.

Going beyond the happy headline of U.S. energy fortunes, the report goes on to talk about the rapidly growing energy demands in China, India, and the Middle East. It then discusses that we are “failing to put the global energy system onto a more sustainable path.” Much, nearly half, of the world’s growth in energy consumption in the past decade has used coal. Looking forward, coal remains central to energy use in China and India. Coal has many negative environmental consequences, including high carbon dioxide emissions. In market-driven energy policy, if the cost of coal remains competitive, then it is difficult to imagine coal being displaced from this central position.

If we have the U.S., and presumably other nations, generating oil and gas from unconventional sources of tightly held fuel, then this generates a new array of environmental consequences. Sticking to the subject of climate change, some of these sources of oil have very high carbon emissions. Also we introduce new challenges in the management of methane, a highly potent greenhouse gas. Therefore, this revelation of the technology to gather more oil and natural gas does not have obvious climate benefit.

World Energy Outlook 2012 does point out that renewable sources of energy are establishing themselves as an important part of the energy portfolio. Current projections are that by 2015, renewable energy will be the second largest source of electric power, and by 2035 renewables become comparable to coal. Note, that is comparable to coal, not displacing coal, and this 2035-world has far more energy production than today. Again, with regard to climate change, the report states that subsidies for exploiting fossil fuels are six times as high as subsidies to renewable energies. Therefore, current energy policy does not suggest high priority to addressing climate change through low-carbon energy.

The International Energy Agency report also discusses the continuing unfolding of the role of nuclear energy following the destruction of the Fukushima nuclear power plant in the 2011. (see also, Earthquakes and Climate Change) A salient point from the report is, again, the apparent decreasing role of nuclear energy in displacing fossil fuels. Further, if nuclear will be having a decreasing role, then the role of renewable energy must increase at the intersection of climate and energy policy.

“Successive editions of this report have shown that the climate goal of limiting warming to 2 °C is becoming more difficult and more costly with each year that passes. Our 450 Scenario examines the actions necessary to achieve this goal and finds that almost four-fifths of the CO2 emissions allowable by 2035 are already locked-in by existing power plants, factories, buildings, etc. If action to reduce CO2 emissions is not taken before 2017, all the allowable CO2 emissions would be locked-in by energy infrastructure existing at that time.” (That would be a goal of limiting carbon dioxide concentrations to 450 parts per million.)

If there is a path to near-term, dramatic reductions of greenhouse gases it is anchored on efficiency. The International Energy Agency has developed a strategy they call the Efficient World Scenario. This “ scenario is, rather, based on a bottom-up analysis of currently available technologies and practices, and considers incremental changes to the level of energy efficiency deployed.” Like the Pacala and Socolow’s Stabilization Wedges, the proposed efficiency approach demonstrates that we do have the wherewithal to make a difference. The difference being - more time to develop energy producing technologies that do not contribute to the accumulation of more carbon dioxide.

I paint here a known picture. It is crystal clear that we cannot address our energy challenges and expect to automatically address our climate issues. Short-term energy and economic issues will always trump climate change. We have here a technological develop that by all indications makes global warming worse. We have great challenges in finding safe, secure sources of energy. Our easiest approaches to the energy security problem make the climate change problem worse. We cannot solve the climate change problem with fossil fuels – remember it is the accumulation of carbon dioxide, not the emission of carbon dioxide. Therefore, new technology that makes it possible to exploit unconventional oil and gas, which might make the U.S. energy independent, puts multiple stresses into the effort to address climate change. We have ingrained behavior and practice that continues to reward exploitation of fossil fuels more aggressively than renewable energy. We have, for example, the Heartland Institute gearing up to fight the progress that has been made in the U.S. on renewable energy. Though the World Bank analysis comes to the conclusion that “a 4 degree Celsius warmer world must be avoided,” we have no energy policy, we have no climate policy, and hence, there is little indication that we will taking steps to avoid that world.

Hydro will become less impeded as desperation becomes more the norm. I have seen some of the proposals made for when things really start to get desperate. Hydro permitting will become a non issue later, in my opinion.

The grid is going to have to be modified soon or it will implode in on itself. Its all pretty much bandages and duct tape now. When minor weather events start taking out the power then you have to come to the realization that major upgrades are needed. The costs are coming anyway and further delays will only increase those costs through more bandages and duct tape until then.

Bio mass. Yes, I had forgotten about these. The technology is coming along and I can imagine that another 5 to 10 years will bring it to feasibility. Once in production, assuredly the algae, then they will become cheap to use, hopefully. They would also be a more reliable energy source than solar or wind.

There will be other technologies introduced as well. Will they come along soon enough? That is the question. So, for now, we need to concentrate on what works now. Development of other sources can continue during this time and brought in as they become available.

Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:

Well, it's good to see a reasonable discussion for a change, and just for the local New England twist to obstacles to many of your suggestions.

Hydro Quebec has been trying for years to get there green power to NH.Blocked by Environmentalists.

December 02. 2012 2:21PMNorthern Pass path power line route in 'final stages'

The project's chief foe, the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, doesn't believe the project can meet that schedule for acquiring a contiguous 40-mile route needed between Groveton and the Canadian border.

Source: http://www.unionleader.com/article/20121202/NEWS05 /121209899

Little farther south, Ted and John's pet peeve.

Congressmen want another look at FAA%u2019s Cape Cod wind farm OK

By PAULA TRACYNew Hampshire Union Leader

Did the Obama administration pressure the Federal Aviation Administration to sign off on the 130-turbine Cape Wind project in Nantucket Sound off Cape Cod?

That is what the chairmen of two powerful Congressional committees want to know.

The agency ruled %u201Cno hazard%u201D would be created for aircraft by the Massachusetts wind park, now 10 years in the planning and approved it in 2010.

But paperwork uncovered by opponents of the project suggest there was political pressure put on the FAA to approve it.

%u201CDid the Administration%u2019s promotion of green energy production factor into FAA%u2019s decision and if so in what way?%u201D wrote U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa R-Calif, chair of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, and John Mica R-Fla., chair of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in a July `17 letter to Acting FAA Administrator Michael Huerta.

Issa and Mica want all FAA documents related to Cape Wind, including those in which Cape Terminal Radar Control noted that safety implications need to be explored.

%u201CWhy did an FAA manager state that it would be %u2018difficult politically%u2019 to refuse approval of this project?%u201D the congressmen wrote.

If built, the $2.5 billion Cape Wind project would be the nation%u2019s first offshore wind farm.

Located on Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound, the project would be in 24 square miles of water about five miles off Mashpee, Mass. The turbines, about 400 feet in height, would be spaced about six- to nine-hundred yards apart, according to its website, capewind.org.

The project has the potential capacity to provide 420 megawatts of electricity created by wind, roughly three quarters of the electric needs of Cape Cod, Nantucket and Martha%u2019s Vineyard.

It is in the process of securing buyers for its electricity, with National Grid picking up about half of its production and NSTAR buying 129 megawatts as a Massachusetts condition of its merger with Northeast Utilities, the parent company of Public Service Company of NH.

Project officials hope to begin construction in 2013 and be producing power by 2015, according to the website.

The Obama administration has advanced renewable power production as an important way to achieve energy independence and grow new jobs.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, has opposed the project and contributed to the organization opposing it, as did the late former U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy, a Democrat, and U.S. Sen. John Kerry D-Mass.

(U.S. government co-funds the development of small modular reactorsIt aims to get these nuclear reactors into the U.S. market by 2022The portable reactors promise lower upfront costs and use in remote areas6:31PM EST November 20. 2012 - To develop a new generation of nuclear power, the Obama administration announced Tuesday that it will fund up to half the cost of a five-year project to design and commercialize small, modular reactors for the United States.

The Department of Energy said it aims to have these reactors, which have attracted private funding from investors including Bill Gates, in operation by 2022.

I totally agree on geotherm in the West as it has proven a life saver in the case of Iceland's energy independence.Good luck to any who suggest sticking a pipe into Old Faithful, maybe Obama will?

Should geothermal energy resources around Yellowstone Park be developed?by Karin Kirk, Montana State University

Is the earth's heat under Yellowstone National Park an energy resource that is ripe for harvesting? Or is it best to leave that resource unused and protect the world's largest collection of geysers? This is a complex issue with geologic, environmental, political and economic factors that must be considered.

What I was demonstrating is how you and others like you do not ask questions in regards to climate science out of interest. Your questions are asked in manner that insinuate or implicate wrong doing, chicanery, or dishonesty. Your questions are more along the lines of accusations, rather than queries of real interest.

Hence, why I wrote the question "Why do you hate America so much?" as a demonstration. This type of question is along the same lines of "When did you stop beating your wife?" Both questions imply guilt of an action (hating America, beating your wife) and immediately puts the party being asked the question in a defensive position.

If you are truly interested in the science, people like Nea and me have posted links to many resources and answered many questions on the subject. There are also many scientific sites a google search away, as well as online access to the models, data, and peer-reviewed research journals.

--The January-November period was the warmest first 11 months of any year on record for the contiguous United States. The national temperature of 57.1F was 3.3F above the 20th century average, and 1.0F above the previous record warm January-November of 1934. During the 11-month period, 18 states were record warm and an additional 24 states were top ten warm.

--It appears virtually certain that 2012 will surpass the current record (1998, 54.3F) as the warmest year for the nation. December 2012 temperatures would need to be more than 1.0F colder than the coldest December (1983) for 2012 to not break the record.*

--The December 2011-November 2012 period was the warmest such 12-month period on record for the contiguous U.S., with an average temperature of 55.2F, 3.2F above average. This 12-month temperature average was the sixth warmest of any 12-month period on record for the contiguous United States. The eight warmest 12-month periods have all ended during 2012.

--The USCEI (US Climate Extremes Index) was more than twice the average value during January-November, and marked the highest USCEI value for the period. Extremes in warm daytime temperatures, warm nighttime temperatures, and the spatial extent of drought conditions contributed to the record high USCEI value.

* And so far, December is running well-above normal, with record highs so far outnumbering record lows by 2,154 to 25.

Why am I a Lunatic or Evil? Is it because I rely on fact and not assumptions.

Not sure what you mean by food prices and weather some harvests were up compared to last year in the USA. I posted this Info yesterday on Jeff's blog.

From memory I think it was (source USDA)

Wheat up 13%Sorghum up 20%Cotton up 10% or 13%Corn down 10% or 13%Soybeans down 10%

If you relied on facts alone you, like anyone else who did that, would be incoherent. To make it through life, we all rely on theories, facts just reinforce our theories.

If you mean that you don't believe theories without comparing the theories to facts, that is the ideal way to go. However, only theories dealing with fundamental substances don't have exceptions. e.g. a theory of physics or any other science that is reducible to fundamental parts. A theory that deals with complex systems, i.e. not fundamental parts will have exceptions. So the interaction of CO2 and photons is a theory of fundamental parts, if you prove that wrong, you could disprove the higher level theory. Global warming however is a theory of systems and statistical behavior, etc.

To analyse a system like this you have to understand how to treat this type of data. To proclaim "I deal in facts" while not understanding how the theory works and how the data, all the data not just your facts, fits into the theory is wrong.

There is no 'ground truth' for us humans, all we have are theories. Only nature has the ground truth. So you, in fact (pun intended), are relying on assumptions not facts when you assume your facts contradict global warming. You seem to be assuming that by applying a fact to a theory you don't understand, you have actually proven that your alternate theory is the ground truth. You haven't either 1) disproven global warming or 2) (even if global warming isn't true) proven your theory is true.

That isn't how science or theories work. State your theory and what consequences it has, then compare those consequences with measurement. This is the test that global warming as a theory has passed many many times. No one knows what your theory is because your thoery only seems to be "The opposite of what Nea says because I rely on isolated facts."

BTW, I have friends just outside of Duluth. I have not seen them for about 12 years. Now, I am missing them. Hmmmm, their oldest daughter is nearly 30 now. Her name is Alicia. Her parents became engaged the night that Hurricane Alicia hit here and they named her from this. This is where they lived at that time. Where has the time gone????

Yes, battles will ensue, no matter the endeavor. Trust me, with that much ore at stake, the mining companies will win the battle. This is not a cell tower placement. So, with that said, I hope that they take all precautions to protect the environment during their mining and refining operations. Else, the cost will prove to be too high.

I am from the area and still live near there. This will be one hell of a fight, you should have seen the fight over a cell phone tower.

I thought that you are from that area.

Yes, battles will ensue, no matter the endeavor. Trust me, with that much ore at stake, the mining companies will win the battle. This is not a cell tower placement. So, with that said, I hope that they take all precautions to protect the environment during their mining and refining operations. Else, the cost will prove to be too high.

There is no doubt that the precious metals believed to be there will be needed for electronics. I also believe that the mining processes could be done in a manner that can protect the environment from the contaminants. To place all past industrial practices into one lump assessment, they have always shown more willingness to cut cost than to avert disasters. Any "acceptable risk" they believe they can take, they will take. "Thar is gold in them thar hills!" So, if an independent and fully accountable monitoring agency was set up to assure all environmental concerns are addressed and adhered to, then I say we need the metals. Capital funding from the mine would pay for monitoring service and the final clean up processes. Always keep in mind that Minnesota is covered with lakes, rivers and streams. Sulfides and water are not a good mix out in the environment. Also, is not arsenic used in the recovery of silver ore? Again, as long as the protection of the environment is the primary concern, then go for it. I know there is no way to be environmentally neutral, but there are ways to be environmentally responsible.

I am from the area and still live near there. This will be one hell of a fight, you should have seen the fight over a cell phone tower.

But questions remain on the potential pollution from mining on the edge of the Boundary Waters.

The company that controls mining rights to 32,000 acres on the doorstep of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area said Tuesday that the land contains 19 percent more copper, gold and palladium than it previously estimated, making Minnesota home to one of the world's largest deposits of precious metals. "These are not minor mineral holdings," said Bob McFarlin, vice president for government and public affairs for Twin Metals, a partner in the planned project, which released the results of the new geological analysis. "The state is sitting on an absolute economic juggernaut for generations to come." Twin Metals, a joint venture between Duluth Metals, a Canadian company, and Antofagasta PLC of Chile, one of the largest international mine operators, is proposing an underground mine and processing plant that would be one of the world's largest. Located along Hwy. 1 near the Kawishiwi River, it is expected to cost $3 billion and eventually could employ hundreds, Twin Metals said. The value of the mineral wealth in the area was pegged last summer at more than $100 billion. The new estimate released Tuesday assigned high confidence to the presence of 13.7 billion pounds of copper, 4.4 billion pounds of nickel and 21.2 million ounces of palladium, platinum and gold. The platinum and palladium deposits would be one of the largest outside of South Africa. The project, along with a proposed mine run by PolyMet Mining Corp., has raised alarms among environmentalists, who worry about the potential impact on northern forests and lake country. PolyMet, which plans a $600 million open-pit project near Hoyt Lakes, is now preparing for the environmental approval process, which it expects to start next year. Unlike taconite, the precious metals would come from sulfide-bearing rock. When exposed to air and water, the waste rock -- which could amount to millions of tons -- produces sulfuric acid that leaches heavy metals that pollute water. Environmental groups say that northeastern Minnesota, with its wetlands and lakes, is especially vulnerable to such pollution. Those questioning the projects say that sulfide mines have always ended up with problems, often severe. "This announcement does not change the main question they need to answer," said Paul Austin, executive director of Conservation Minnesota. "The main concern is that there is no sulfide mine that can demonstrate it can be operated and closed without polluting." Environmental data Both PolyMet and Twin Metals said they expect to meet all state and federal environmental standards. PolyMet said this summer that it had installed a reverse osmosis water treatment system to remove all contaminants from water. Twin Metals hopes to complete a pre-feasibility study for the mine, which will include baseline environmental data, sometime in 2014. As it completes increasingly extensive engineering and geological surveys, Twin Metals has consistently raised its estimates of the deposits within its holdings. But this latest increase, an average of 19 percent more copper, gold, nickel and palladium, was significant. McFarlin said it reflected both the breadth of the deposit and the concentration of ores within the rock.

My thoughts? Minnesota - The land of a 1000 lakes.

There is no doubt that the precious metals believed to be there will be needed for electronics. I also believe that the mining processes could be done in a manner that can protect the environment from the contaminants. To place all past industrial practices into one lump assessment, they have always shown more willingness to cut cost than to avert disasters. Any "acceptable risk" they believe they can take, they will take. "Thar is gold in them thar hills!" So, if an independent and fully accountable monitoring agency was set up to assure all environmental concerns are addressed and adhered to, then I say we need the metals. Capital funding from the mine would pay for monitoring service and the final clean up processes. Always keep in mind that Minnesota is covered with lakes, rivers and streams. Sulfides and water are not a good mix out in the environment. Also, is not arsenic used in the recovery of silver ore? Again, as long as the protection of the environment is the primary concern, then go for it. I know there is no way to be environmentally neutral, but there are ways to be environmentally responsible.

Ah!, but in a very real sense, the future is with us now. We can actually lower these transitions costs now by simply putting less demand on the system now.

Consume lessConserve what we consumeRecycle what we discard

We, as individuals, save ourselves money as money is being invested to get us to where we need to be. The consumption could resume to levels that are more "satisfying" as the system becomes more able to handle the load.

Hummm, you fail to recognize that there are about 6 billion folks out there that want to have what you have right now.

Just sayin, you seem to be viewing things from a perspective that does not account for most of this globes population.

But questions remain on the potential pollution from mining on the edge of the Boundary Waters.

The company that controls mining rights to 32,000 acres on the doorstep of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area said Tuesday that the land contains 19 percent more copper, gold and palladium than it previously estimated, making Minnesota home to one of the world's largest deposits of precious metals. "These are not minor mineral holdings," said Bob McFarlin, vice president for government and public affairs for Twin Metals, a partner in the planned project, which released the results of the new geological analysis. "The state is sitting on an absolute economic juggernaut for generations to come." Twin Metals, a joint venture between Duluth Metals, a Canadian company, and Antofagasta PLC of Chile, one of the largest international mine operators, is proposing an underground mine and processing plant that would be one of the world's largest. Located along Hwy. 1 near the Kawishiwi River, it is expected to cost $3 billion and eventually could employ hundreds, Twin Metals said. The value of the mineral wealth in the area was pegged last summer at more than $100 billion. The new estimate released Tuesday assigned high confidence to the presence of 13.7 billion pounds of copper, 4.4 billion pounds of nickel and 21.2 million ounces of palladium, platinum and gold. The platinum and palladium deposits would be one of the largest outside of South Africa. The project, along with a proposed mine run by PolyMet Mining Corp., has raised alarms among environmentalists, who worry about the potential impact on northern forests and lake country. PolyMet, which plans a $600 million open-pit project near Hoyt Lakes, is now preparing for the environmental approval process, which it expects to start next year. Unlike taconite, the precious metals would come from sulfide-bearing rock. When exposed to air and water, the waste rock -- which could amount to millions of tons -- produces sulfuric acid that leaches heavy metals that pollute water. Environmental groups say that northeastern Minnesota, with its wetlands and lakes, is especially vulnerable to such pollution. Those questioning the projects say that sulfide mines have always ended up with problems, often severe. "This announcement does not change the main question they need to answer," said Paul Austin, executive director of Conservation Minnesota. "The main concern is that there is no sulfide mine that can demonstrate it can be operated and closed without polluting." Environmental data Both PolyMet and Twin Metals said they expect to meet all state and federal environmental standards. PolyMet said this summer that it had installed a reverse osmosis water treatment system to remove all contaminants from water. Twin Metals hopes to complete a pre-feasibility study for the mine, which will include baseline environmental data, sometime in 2014. As it completes increasingly extensive engineering and geological surveys, Twin Metals has consistently raised its estimates of the deposits within its holdings. But this latest increase, an average of 19 percent more copper, gold, nickel and palladium, was significant. McFarlin said it reflected both the breadth of the deposit and the concentration of ores within the rock.

Quoting nymore: agreed but the tech is not there yet and ever when it is it will be expensive at first. The average car on the road right now is 11 years old which tells me people do not have a lot of extra money to spend on a new car. In the future these technologies will exist and be priced lower but right now about 1000 dollars will change your car or truck to Nat Gas

Ah!, but in a very real sense, the future is with us now. We can actually lower these transitions costs now by simply putting less demand on the system now.

Consume lessConserve what we consumeRecycle what we discard

We, as individuals, save ourselves money as money is being invested to get us to where we need to be. The consumption could resume to levels that are more "satisfying" as the system becomes more able to handle the load.

Let us not forget hydrogen and all electric cars as well. Solar could be used to power the the "refueling" stattions and natural gas when solar is not a viable option.

agreed but the tech is not there yet and ever when it is it will be expensive at first. The average car on the road right now is 11 years old which tells me people do not have a lot of extra money to spend on a new car. In the future these technologies will exist and be priced lower but right now about 1000 dollars will change your car or truck to Nat Gas

Agreed. With cars we could use way more Nat Gas the infrastructure is basically there and it make economic sense which is why many fleets are going to it. They do don't go to it for green house reasons they do it becuase it makes sense money wise. They have kits to change over a normal engine

Let us not forget hydrogen and all electric cars as well. Solar could be used to power the the "refueling" stattions and natural gas when solar is not a viable option.

Hydro will become less impeded as desperation becomes more the norm. I have seen some of the proposals made for when things really start to get desperate. Hydro permitting will become a non issue later, in my opinion.

The grid is going to have to be modified soon or it will implode in on itself. Its all pretty much bandages and duct tape now. When minor weather events start taking out the power then you have to come to the realization that major upgrades are needed. The costs are coming anyway and further delays will only increase those costs through more bandages and duct tape until then.

Bio mass. Yes, I had forgotten about these. The technology is coming along and I can imagine that another 5 to 10 years will bring it to feasibility. Once in production, assuredly the algae, then they will become cheap to use, hopefully. They would also be a more reliable energy source than solar or wind.

There will be other technologies introduced as well. Will they come along soon enough? That is the question. So, for now, we need to concentrate on what works now. Development of other sources can continue during this time and brought in as they become available.

Agreed. With cars we could use way more Nat Gas the infrastructure is basically there and it make economic sense which is why many fleets are going to it. They do don't go to it for green house reasons they do it becuase it makes sense money wise. They have kits to change over a normal engine

Well you could probably never get a hydro plant permitted the USA now anyway.

Bio mass has shown some promise too. I really see no way short term (decades probably)

The grid could use upgrading as well as most infrastructure. This alone will cost many and many billions of dollars alone just to save what we have.

Hydro will become less impeded as desperation becomes more the norm. I have seen some of the proposals made for when things really start to get desperate. Hydro permitting will become a non issue later, in my opinion.

The grid is going to have to be modified soon or it will implode in on itself. Its all pretty much bandages and duct tape now. When minor weather events start taking out the power then you have to come to the realization that major upgrades are needed. The costs are coming anyway and further delays will only increase those costs through more bandages and duct tape until then.

Bio mass. Yes, I had forgotten about these. The technology is coming along and I can imagine that another 5 to 10 years will bring it to feasibility. Once in production, assuredly the algae, then they will become cheap to use, hopefully. They would also be a more reliable energy source than solar or wind.

There will be other technologies introduced as well. Will they come along soon enough? That is the question. So, for now, we need to concentrate on what works now. Development of other sources can continue during this time and brought in as they become available.

I like the idea that you want to incorporate every renewable source we have the technology for now. Nuclear and natural gas power generation will have to be used during the transition stages to keep up our power demands until the renewables are able to accomplish this on their own.

We know that the electrical grids would have to redesigned to better support the variable power that solar and wind would produce. I do not see the modification of the electrical grid as a major stumbling block since the grid is already in need of serious updates. This would be the time to upgrade the grids to accommodate solar and wind power generation.

Each region of the world would need to adapt to the best source of renewable energy for that region. Be it solar, hydro, nuclear, wind or whatever, the energy source(s) best suited for the region should be utilized. Short term studies could easily determine the best power source(s) for each region. I see no need for long term studies to determine this. Should a better renewable energy be discovered for a region later, then this could be incorporated as well.

Hydro power may become a stumbling block in regions that have the water sources now, but may become too arid later to support the technology.

Your thoughts or additions to this?

Well you could probably never get a hydro plant permitted the USA now anyway.

Bio mass has shown some promise too. I really see no way off fossil fuels short term (decades probably)

The grid could use upgrading as well as most infrastructure. This alone will cost many and many billions of dollars alone just to save what we have.

I believe we have to get rip of coal and oil first. I can only see a couple of solutions as of now.

First out west I believe you could generate more geo thermal (you do have to frack if you want to have any larger scale though). I realize there is not a whole lot there but if it can make decent economic sense why not.

Second since I believe between nuclear and hydro they have a pretty decent baseload supply. So you could use solar concentration tech to make up a little and wind perhaps when available.

I believe out west they are best set up now for the rest of the country I believe solar and wind have there place there is really not many possibilities for baseload the way our grid is set up. So I guess my idea would be to set up either newer tech nuclear or combination gas turbines and use what ever wind or solar the grid would allow.

Part of the problem is you can not send great amounts of electricity very long distances efficently enough with AC

Power plants are an excellent starting point.

I like the idea that you want to incorporate every renewable source we have the technology for now. Nuclear and natural gas power generation will have to be used during the transition stages to keep up our power demands until the renewables are able to accomplish this on their own.

We know that the electrical grids would have to redesigned to better support the variable power that solar and wind would produce. I do not see the modification of the electrical grid as a major stumbling block since the grid is already in need of serious updates. This would be the time to upgrade the grids to accommodate solar and wind power generation.

Each region of the world would need to adapt to the best source of renewable energy for that region. Be it solar, hydro, nuclear, wind or whatever, the energy source(s) best suited for the region should be utilized. Short term studies could easily determine the best power source(s) for each region. I see no need for long term studies to determine this. Should a better renewable energy be discovered for a region later, then this could be incorporated as well.

Hydro power may become a stumbling block in regions that have the water sources now, but may become too arid later to support the technology.

I believe we have to get rid of coal and oil first. I can only see a couple of solutions as of now.

First out west I believe you could generate more geo thermal (you do have to frack if you want to have any larger scale though). I realize there is not a whole lot there but if it can make decent economic sense why not.

Second since I believe between nuclear and hydro they have a pretty decent baseload supply. So you could use solar concentration tech to make up a little and wind perhaps when available.

I believe out west they are best set up now for the rest of the country I believe solar and wind have there place there is really not many possibilities for baseload the way our grid is set up. So I guess my idea would be to set up either newer tech nuclear or combination gas turbines and use what ever wind or solar the grid would allow.

Part of the problem is you can not send great amounts of electricity very long distances efficently enough with AC

Quoting Neapolitan:Well, I appreciate the advice, but with all due respect, how about you continue to do what you enjoy and what you feel is effective, and I'll continue to do what I enjoy and what I feel is effective? Fair enough? As I've stated maybe a hundred times, my responses to denialist blather here and elsewhere aren't intended for the denialists doing that blathering; after all, I know they are beyond logic or reason or even common sense. No, my responses are for the many silent people who lurk and are possibly uncertain which side to support, and are looking for help cutting through the deliberate fog thrown up by those denialists.

Now, I realize there are some who don't believe it's possible to engage in more than one facet of climate change activism at a time. They think one can only discuss climate science, or only ridicule denialists, or only talk about mitigation or adaptation, or only do things to shrink their own carbon footprint, or only try to sway policymakers. And they may have this belief because that's all they think they themselves are capable of. That's fine. But that's an awfully provincial and narrow-minded view to impose on others. Because the thing is, many people are entirely capable of doing more than one of those--and they all have value.

In the past (again, here and elsewhere) I've clearly outlined the many ways I have cut, and continue to cut, my carbon footprint. I've detailed the political activism I've done, and continue to do, on the behalf of climate scientists. I've talked about my participation helping disseminate scientific findings that bolster climate change theory. I've written about and discussed in depth ways we can overcome the many policy obstacles and hurdles we face. And, yes, I have often mercilessly ridiculed the ridicule-deserving anti-science stance of denialists. Some may not see the value in all of those, particularly that last one. And that's okay; they're certainly free to place me on ignore if that makes them feel better. If they want to arrogantly claim that's not "important for the future", that's their prerogative. But I will continue to engage in all of the above so long as I am able, for I do see the value in all of them. And I'm not alone in thinking that.

The bottom line: rehabilitation and recovery are major components of battling an addiction. But that can't happen until the addict accepts that s/he has an addiction.

1) A movement to get people to buy orange bottles of laundry detergent.

2) An alternative name for the seafloor.

3) An alumni group from the University of Alabama.

4) The misspelled name of the "Tides Foundation", a non-profit group now in its third decade of working for positive, progressive social change; a group that's done nothing but good but is nevertheless the latest target of Glen Beck-ian radical right-wing paranoia; a group which has already been the intended target of at least one mentally unhinged conservative gunman; a group now being pilloried by members of the anti-science party both jealous of the Foundation's many successes and accomplishments, and having a hurt due to last month's overwhelming electoral trouncing.

sorry i forgot to add the s at the end of tide....glad you support raising taxes on the middle class and the poor with a carbon tax......with that mindset you should go join the ceo of exxon....

Quoting percylives (#96):Nea, with all due respect for your diligence in trying to educate the dead, IMO, your abilities would be much better used in trying to produce a solution to the problem.

Well, I appreciate the advice, but with all due respect, how about you continue to do what you enjoy and what you feel is effective, and I'll continue to do what I enjoy and what I feel is effective? Fair enough? As I've stated maybe a hundred times, my responses to denialist blather here and elsewhere aren't intended for the denialists doing that blathering; after all, I know they are beyond logic or reason or even common sense. No, my responses are for the many silent people who lurk and are possibly uncertain which side to support, and are looking for help cutting through the deliberate fog thrown up by those denialists.

Now, I realize there are some who don't believe it's possible to engage in more than one facet of climate change activism at a time. They think one can only discuss climate science, or only ridicule denialists, or only talk about mitigation or adaptation, or only do things to shrink their own carbon footprint, or only try to sway policymakers. And they may have this belief because that's all they think they themselves are capable of. That's fine. But that's an awfully provincial and narrow-minded view to impose on others. Because the thing is, many people are entirely capable of doing more than one of those--and they all have value.

In the past (again, here and elsewhere) I've clearly outlined the many ways I have cut, and continue to cut, my carbon footprint. I've detailed the political activism I've done, and continue to do, on the behalf of climate scientists. I've talked about my participation helping disseminate scientific findings that bolster climate change theory. I've written about and discussed in depth ways we can overcome the many policy obstacles and hurdles we face. And, yes, I have often mercilessly ridiculed the ridicule-deserving anti-science stance of denialists. Some may not see the value in all of those, particularly that last one. And that's okay; they're certainly free to place me on ignore if that makes them feel better. If they want to arrogantly claim that's not "important for the future", that's their prerogative. But I will continue to engage in all of the above so long as I am able, for I do see the value in all of them. And I'm not alone in thinking that.

The bottom line: rehabilitation and recovery are major components of battling an addiction. But that can't happen until the addict accepts that s/he has an addiction.

However, questioning data with the "Can you prove it?" is standard fare for wacko right wing nut jobs. IF you want to debate fine, neither I nor Nea or anyone else of the rabid alarmist camps minds honest question or honest debate. We would all love to be proved wrong. However, asking an question such as you asked is either right wing nut job territory or a symptom of serious reasoning incapability. Given the comments on here, it is natural that I erred in assuming causation where there was coincidental correlation in the two in your comments. Btu there has been such correlation between the two across all comments, it is natural to make that mistake.

However, if you are not a rabid alarmist, you are either a lunatic or evil. Have you looked at the data? Have you seen food prices due to this year's weather? Maybe you can survive but a lot won't.

Why am I a Lunatic or Evil? Is it because I rely on fact and not assumptions.

Not sure what you mean by food prices and weather some harvests were up compared to last year in the USA. I posted this Info yesterday on Jeff's blog.

From memory I think it was (source USDA)

Wheat up 13%Sorghum up 20%Cotton up 10% or 13%Corn down 10% or 13%Soybeans down 10%

Nymore, good evening. Pardon my brief absence, but it appears what I thought was a moderate head cold was more along the line of a mild/moderate bout of Bronchitis.

.....YES, the science behind the AGWT is settled. ....Read a book! Preferably a non fiction book this time! I, for one, will refuse to continue discussions with those that posses an ideologically based, self induced ignorance of the science involved! Even if anyone is incapable or unwilling to understand the science then at least pay attention to the physical observations that have been made over the past 50 years! .....What do you want to do? I want to discuss real solutions to very real problems.

Thank you!

Someone on the page that's important for the future. Count me in, Rookie

Here lets try again because this is what you people who are rabid alarmists do, you like to claim that anyone who questions a certain claim made by someone is a denialist who whats everyone to die because we are in love with fossil fuels. Then you will go political for no apparent reason and call people right wing wackos.

Believe me I know this happens on the other side too.

As for me here you go once again.

Do I believe man has caused the planet to warm, Answer Yes

Do I believe there have been more flooding rains, Answer Yes

Do I believe there have been more Droughts, Answer Open for debate as there have been studies on both sides.

Do I Believe there have been more or worse storms, Answer No as there has been no evidence to point to such a thing happening.

Now just so you understand just because someone Questions a claim, it does not mean there don't believe in the theory overall.

Well I am happy to hear you are not a right wing wacko.

However, questioning data with the "Can you prove it?" is standard fare for wacko right wing nut jobs. IF you want to debate fine, neither I nor Nea or anyone else of the rabid alarmist camps minds honest question or honest debate. We would all love to be proved wrong. However, asking an question such as you asked is either right wing nut job territory or a symptom of serious reasoning incapability. Given the comments on here, it is natural that I erred in assuming causation where there was coincidental correlation in the two in your comments. Btu there has been such correlation between the two across all comments, it is natural to make that mistake.

However, if you are not a rabid alarmist, you are either a lunatic or evil (the general 'you', I'm not singling you out for this). Have you looked at the data? Have you seen food prices due to this year's weather? Maybe you can survive but a lot won't.

Actually you have nothing. You haven't proven anything. Seriously take a look at the data.

But more to the point, you challended Nea to prove a theory. Call it 'Theory J' to keep it neutral. I asked you to prove 'Theory K'.

I suspect you asked Nea because you knew the evidence for the theory was statistically based and you could show there were exceptions, as there always will be to statistical data.

So I asked you to prove the opposite, knowing that you couldn't prove it since the statistics are all against you, as study after study has shown.

Serious people have published a lot on this. You know this because Nea and others are constantly quoting from those works. Yet you don't take the time to do serious work and try to find an answer, you just give a list which, if I analyzed it, would show global warming, like all the other scientist who have analysed such lists have.

But even so, this is all meaningless. We are discussing the future of the planet, not a few storms and you are playing little emotional games on here, a quote here or there, a snippet of exception, a circular argument, etc and you score points for yourself.

The point is this: forget storms, there is a theory that there will be horrible damage to the earth and it is backed up by theory, proven mechanism and statistics. Your theory that this isn't happening is just as much a 'theory' as the theory that is it is. Yet your theory has no mechanism and no statistics.

Play your games on here but outside of the internet, I hope for your sake you don't make decisions or think the way you do here. Even on here, to the extent that anyone listens to your inane reasoning, your are hurting people.

Here lets try again because this is what you people who are rabid alarmists do, you like to claim that anyone who questions a certain claim made by someone is a denialist who whats everyone to die because we are in love with fossil fuels. Then you will go political for no apparent reason and call people right wing wackos.

Believe me I know this happens on the other side too.

As for me here you go once again.

Do I believe man has caused the planet to warm, Answer Yes

Do I believe there have been more flooding rains, Answer Yes

Do I believe there have been more Droughts, Answer Open for debate as there have been studies on both sides.

Do I Believe there have been more or worse storms, Answer No as there has been no evidence to point to such a thing happening.

Now just so you understand just because someone Questions a claim, it does not mean there don't believe in the theory overall.

You obviously want to make some point on this. Say what you want to say about tide funding and then move on.

The Koch brothers helped to fund Richard Muller's team on the BEST report. The report came out in direct contrast of what the Koch brothers, The Heritage Institute and Anthony Watts wanted it to be. Richard Muller, a former skeptic of the temperature data that had previously been collected, now says that the temperature data was under reporting how much warming has occurred and that mankind is significantly responsible for the warming. The Koch brothers have been moot on the subject, at least publicly. Anthony claimed that he would would side with whatever the BEST report showed. Anthony Watts LIED about this. No surprise!

Quoting nymore:Well GreenT that would certainly explain why records from over 100 years ago still stand. LOL

Face it you got nothing and you know it.

Actually you have nothing. You haven't proven anything. Seriously take a look at the data.

But more to the point, you challended Nea to prove a theory. Call it 'Theory J' to keep it neutral. I asked you to prove 'Theory K'.

I suspect you asked Nea because you knew the evidence for the theory was statistically based and you could show there were exceptions, as there always will be to statistical data.

So I asked you to prove the opposite, knowing that you couldn't prove it since the statistics are all against you, as study after study has shown.

Serious people have published a lot on this. You know this because Nea and others are constantly quoting from those works. Yet you don't take the time to do serious work and try to find an answer, you just give a list which, if I analyzed it, would show global warming, like all the other scientist who have analysed such lists have.

But even so, this is all meaningless. We are discussing the future of the planet, not a few storms and you are playing little emotional games on here, a quote here or there, a snippet of exception, a circular argument, etc and you score points for yourself.

The point is this: forget storms, there is a theory that there will be horrible damage to the earth and it is backed up by theory, proven mechanism and statistics. Your theory that this isn't happening is just as much a 'theory' as the theory that is it is. Yet your theory has no mechanism and no statistics.

Play your games on here but outside of the internet, I hope for your sake you don't make decisions or think the way you do here. Even on here, to the extent that anyone listens to your inane reasoning, your are hurting people.

i think you have extremes on both sides. you have oil companies funding studies and you have tide funding studies... one side is pushing a carbon tax the other saying fossil fuel not that bad, and as far as speaking up on attacking neap funny when others get attacked you do not speak up in fact you support them attacking the person.......

Yes. I agree. There are extremes on both sides. Here is the big difference between the extremes.

One side wants us off of fossil fuels yesterday. The other side wants to use fossil fuels until they are fully depleted and they have profited off of every single cent that can made from their use.

One side wants to try their best to help assure that our future generations will be able to meet their energy needs. The other side does not appear to care the least if our future generations are even around to require any energy needs.

One side wants to enact the "pay as you go" approach to energy sustainability. The other side wants enjoy the cheapest energy costs available to them now and force the costs to develop sustainable energy sources onto the future generations.

Here is the true extreme realities. Unless we make serious attempts now to move to sustainable energy sources then there will be extremely limited resources left to do so later. Unless we start trying to limit the warming now, there may be no need for any large scale energy sources in the future.